Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AN OPEN LETTER
136 views
Skip to first unread message
data...@yahoo.com
Nov 14, 2012, 8:50:51 AM11/14/12
to
Z
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to riders distributed by UCI president Pat McQuaid on Tuesday November 13, 2012. The letter, lightly copyedited, appears here in its entirety.
Dear rider,
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the latest developments and decisions we have taken in response to the current crisis in our sport.
You will have seen in recent media reports that Philippe Gilbert, Mark Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins among many others have been strong voices in telling the world that today’s cycling is cleaner than ever before. Of course, they are right. You, today’s riders, not only participate in the most innovative and effective anti-doping programs in sport but above all you have understood which choice to make for your career and for your sport. The result is that our sport is cleaner.
Actually the UCI has always been a pioneer in the fight against doping, a fact recognized by WADA and the IOC among others. We pride ourselves on the fact that we were the first sport to introduce a whole range of scientific measures as tools in this fight. These include the haematocrit test, the EPO tests, the homologous blood transfusion test and the blood passport, which I do not need to tell you about, as you are in the front line and have been overwhelmingly supportive of these initiatives. We are aware that this extensive anti-doping program causes much inconvenience for you, and we thank you for having accepted the hassle for the greater good of cycling.
Nevertheless, when we read in the USADA dossier that Lance Armstrong and others were able to use doping throughout their careers, we have to admit that the tests provided by the scientific community were simply not adequate enough to combat the problem.
Therefore we must all continue to work to keep improving the culture in cycling through education, prevention and as far as you are concerned by making the one choice that counts. At the end of the day it is you the riders who have the ultimate say about whether our sport is clean.
Naturally, we need to do more to ensure that the UCI is as accessible as possible, and in particular to you the riders, should you wish to discuss issues or concerns relating to doping. That is why, during the coming weeks, also after a small timeframe to set up the logistical side, the UCI will be looking into establishing a new open line — a confidential ‘hotline’. We will be sending more information about this once in place. I know that it will take some time to build trust and confidence in this new line of communication, but I am confident that, with the best intentions from both sides, we can build that trust. And by doing so, we will accelerate the change in culture that we need in our sport.
We are aware that some riders have complained publicly that despite having shared knowledge with the UCI, there was an inadequate follow-up. I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that the UCI did act on information provided in the past and it will always do so in the future, within the bounds of what is legally feasible.
Clearly, the UCI has to work within the rules and in particular in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code. At this time the rules do not allow general amnesties but the current review of the World Anti-Doping Code may provide different possibilities in the future. The rules do currently allow reduced penalties. We are aware, and doing the utmost to address your proposals/needs in the effort to do the best by our sport.
As far as repairing the reputation of our sport, I would like to add that the UCI has listened to the world’s reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and it has taken — and will continue to take — decisive steps in response to all matters raised.
To make sure that the UCI and cycling can move forward with the confidence of all parties, we are now establishing a fully independent commission to look into the findings of the USADA report and make recommendations to enable the UCI to restore confidence in the sport of cycling. John Coates, the President of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), has agreed to recommend the composition and membership of the Independent Commission. The UCI has already begun contacting the people Mr. Coates has nominated. The names of the panel members will be announced as soon as the commission is convened. The Commission’s final report and recommendations will be published no later than 1 June 2013 — and you can be confident that the UCI will take whatever actions are deemed necessary to put cycling back on track. We are confident that the commission will conclude that the UCI has been one of the strongest of all sporting federations in fighting doping in sport for many years.
As part of the effort to eradicate doping from our sport the UCI has made a considerable investment in education and implementation of the True Champion or Cheat program, the ‘no needle policy’, the ethical evaluation as part of teams’ registration and the modules in the Sports Directors training program. These are all measures to achieve the necessary changes in the culture of our sport.
Finally, while the independent commission carries out its work, I feel it is also important that UCI works on restoring the credibility of our sport. I have decided that, during the first quarter of 2013, the UCI will set in motion a wide-ranging consultation exercise involving all cycling’s stakeholders to tackle issues of concern within the sport and work together to build a bright future for cycling.
The UCI will welcome your participation in this consultation, which will also look at how we can continue the process of globalising the sport, encourage wider participation and take measures to make the sport even more interesting for spectators.
This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads. Nor is it the first time it has had to engage in the painful process of confronting its past and beginning afresh. It will do so again with renewed vigor. Its stakeholders and fans can be assured that cycling will find a new path forward.
This summer in London, we saw that cycling is one of the world’s most popular sports. Its future will be defined by you the current generation of riders, who have proved that you can compete and win clean. In December, I will be meeting all first- and second-division teams to address the issues which will ensure a clean, anti-doping culture going forward.
Together, we can maintain cycling’s popularity and ensure its bright future.
Yours faithfully,
Pat McQuaid
President, UCI
yirgster
Nov 14, 2012, 10:58:01 AM11/14/12
to
What BS!!! McQuaid is a total disgrace.
His statement of investigating claims that riders made. Right, like those of Floyd Landis whom instead he sued.
His response to Frankie Andreu's doping confession (and this is just one instance, I could go on). Per an article in cyclingnews Nov 13 (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andreu-skeptical-about-uci-doping-hotline);
The American rode with Lance Armstrong at US Postal and confessed to doping in a New York Times article in 2006. His confession was met with a level of derision from the UCI, with President Pat McQuaid stating at the time: "If Andreu wishes to say that, that's up to him to say that. I don't know what he's trying to achieve because he cannot achieve anything by saying this."
His statement of investigating claims that riders made. Right, like those of Floyd Landis whom instead he sued.
His response to Frankie Andreu's doping confession (and this is just one instance, I could go on). Per an article in cyclingnews Nov 13 (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andreu-skeptical-about-uci-doping-hotline);
The American rode with Lance Armstrong at US Postal and confessed to doping in a New York Times article in 2006. His confession was met with a level of derision from the UCI, with President Pat McQuaid stating at the time: "If Andreu wishes to say that, that's up to him to say that. I don't know what he's trying to achieve because he cannot achieve anything by saying this."
Free Willy
Nov 14, 2012, 11:12:30 AM11/14/12
to
<data...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5531365-27b5-4fc1...@googlegroups.com...
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to riders distributed by UCI
president Pat McQuaid on Tuesday November 13, 2012. The letter, lightly
copyedited, appears here in its entirety.
Dear rider,
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the latest developments
and decisions we have taken in response to the current crisis in our sport.
You will have seen in recent media reports that Philippe Gilbert, Mark
Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins among many others have been strong voices in
telling the world that today’s cycling is cleaner than ever before. Of course,
they are right. You, today’s riders, not only participate in the most
innovative and effective anti-doping programs in sport but above all you have
understood which choice to make for your career and for your sport. The result
is that our sport is cleaner.
***** Most innovative??? LOL. So, tell me, Pat, why are they such an abject
FAILURE?
Actually the UCI has always been a pioneer in the fight against doping, a fact
recognized by WADA and the IOC among others. We pride ourselves on the fact
that we were the first sport to introduce a whole range of scientific measures
as tools in this fight. These include the haematocrit test, the EPO tests, the
homologous blood transfusion test and the blood passport, which I do not need
to tell you about, as you are in the front line and have been overwhelmingly
supportive of these initiatives. We are aware that this extensive anti-doping
program causes much inconvenience for you, and we thank you for having
accepted the hassle for the greater good of cycling.
******* Then why have you chosen to IGNORE the results of those tests
rectroactively, Pat? Why have you passed athletes like Lance Armstrong, test
after test after test, at the time the test was taken but now claim that Lance
is a *doper* on the basis of rumor, innuendo and bribed testimony?
Nevertheless, when we read in the USADA dossier that Lance Armstrong and
others were able to use doping throughout their careers, we have to admit that
the tests provided by the scientific community were simply not adequate enough
to combat the problem.
*******DAMNED RIGHT, PAT! So, rather admit YOU and WADA were/are inept and
total failures at what you do, you lash out against athletes who passed all
your failed tests. A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance
passed all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping
because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
Trimmed remainder of disingenuous tripe that only attempts to obfuscate the
FAILURE that is Pat McQuaid and his toothless attack dog - WADA!
Do the right thing, Pat. RESIGN in disgrace as you truly ARE a disgrace.
--
Willy Free
news:c5531365-27b5-4fc1...@googlegroups.com...
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to riders distributed by UCI
president Pat McQuaid on Tuesday November 13, 2012. The letter, lightly
copyedited, appears here in its entirety.
Dear rider,
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the latest developments
and decisions we have taken in response to the current crisis in our sport.
You will have seen in recent media reports that Philippe Gilbert, Mark
Cavendish and Bradley Wiggins among many others have been strong voices in
telling the world that today’s cycling is cleaner than ever before. Of course,
they are right. You, today’s riders, not only participate in the most
innovative and effective anti-doping programs in sport but above all you have
understood which choice to make for your career and for your sport. The result
is that our sport is cleaner.
FAILURE?
Actually the UCI has always been a pioneer in the fight against doping, a fact
recognized by WADA and the IOC among others. We pride ourselves on the fact
that we were the first sport to introduce a whole range of scientific measures
as tools in this fight. These include the haematocrit test, the EPO tests, the
homologous blood transfusion test and the blood passport, which I do not need
to tell you about, as you are in the front line and have been overwhelmingly
supportive of these initiatives. We are aware that this extensive anti-doping
program causes much inconvenience for you, and we thank you for having
accepted the hassle for the greater good of cycling.
rectroactively, Pat? Why have you passed athletes like Lance Armstrong, test
after test after test, at the time the test was taken but now claim that Lance
is a *doper* on the basis of rumor, innuendo and bribed testimony?
Nevertheless, when we read in the USADA dossier that Lance Armstrong and
others were able to use doping throughout their careers, we have to admit that
the tests provided by the scientific community were simply not adequate enough
to combat the problem.
total failures at what you do, you lash out against athletes who passed all
your failed tests. A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance
passed all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping
because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
Trimmed remainder of disingenuous tripe that only attempts to obfuscate the
FAILURE that is Pat McQuaid and his toothless attack dog - WADA!
Do the right thing, Pat. RESIGN in disgrace as you truly ARE a disgrace.
--
Willy Free
atriage
Nov 14, 2012, 12:39:55 PM11/14/12
to
Free Willy<free...@invalid.invalid
> A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance
> passed all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping
> because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
Listen up fuckwit, what defines doping is whether or not someone WAS doping, Lance was, only a credulous fool suffering a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance would think otherwise.
> passed all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping
> because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
Free Willy
Nov 14, 2012, 1:02:59 PM11/14/12
to
"atriage" <atr...@satriage.net> wrote in message
news:50a3d76b$0$13419$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...
1) having greater than NONE of certain listed performance enhancers
in evidence in the control testing
2) being tested and coming in under stated limits above which one fails
the control and is thus guilty of doping.
So, according to the entire testing program, the definition of doping is
defined by the testing and the limits. So, how can they after-the-fact toss
out their entire doping control program in favor of rumor, innuendo and bribed
testimony and attempt to cast themselves in a successful light?
They cannot. UCI/WADA have cast themselves as FAILURES and should just admit
they are failures. The only way they had to NOT be failures is to remain true
to the controls they set up. Once they after-the-fact rejected their very own
controls they admitted they FAILED.
--
Willy Free
news:50a3d76b$0$13419$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
> Free Willy<free...@invalid.invalid
>> A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance passed all the
>> controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping because
>> what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
>
> Listen up fuckwit, what defines doping is whether or not someone WAS doping,
> Lance was, only a credulous fool suffering a nasty dose of cognitive
> dissonance would think otherwise.
WRONG! The UCI and WADA defined and still define doping as:
>
> Free Willy<free...@invalid.invalid
>> A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance passed all the
>> controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT doping because
>> what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
>
> Listen up fuckwit, what defines doping is whether or not someone WAS doping,
> Lance was, only a credulous fool suffering a nasty dose of cognitive
> dissonance would think otherwise.
1) having greater than NONE of certain listed performance enhancers
in evidence in the control testing
2) being tested and coming in under stated limits above which one fails
the control and is thus guilty of doping.
So, according to the entire testing program, the definition of doping is
defined by the testing and the limits. So, how can they after-the-fact toss
out their entire doping control program in favor of rumor, innuendo and bribed
testimony and attempt to cast themselves in a successful light?
They cannot. UCI/WADA have cast themselves as FAILURES and should just admit
they are failures. The only way they had to NOT be failures is to remain true
to the controls they set up. Once they after-the-fact rejected their very own
controls they admitted they FAILED.
--
Willy Free
data...@yahoo.com
Nov 15, 2012, 8:00:07 PM11/15/12
to
yup that observation is correct...and WE WON.
Butbutbut that is SPORT...USpostal as a group broke LAW not sport...uh I'm weak here but the LAW 'broken' as not on trial convicted but is fairly minor LAW but punishable with fines or time....so faR not acted on but left to the USADA NAZI'S.
I have forgotten what LAW USpostal broke....excusi..
SANDY, election and D. Petraeus gives relief from the papernazzi who would off course in a 'free' society eventually ROAST all ignoring this to a wart like uh MORDUCK who would carrying on ina attempt to acheive power position like uh NADER AND THE CRIB who brought us PEARL HARBOR 2/BURY MY HEART IN CHAD.
Butbutbut that is SPORT...USpostal as a group broke LAW not sport...uh I'm weak here but the LAW 'broken' as not on trial convicted but is fairly minor LAW but punishable with fines or time....so faR not acted on but left to the USADA NAZI'S.
I have forgotten what LAW USpostal broke....excusi..
SANDY, election and D. Petraeus gives relief from the papernazzi who would off course in a 'free' society eventually ROAST all ignoring this to a wart like uh MORDUCK who would carrying on ina attempt to acheive power position like uh NADER AND THE CRIB who brought us PEARL HARBOR 2/BURY MY HEART IN CHAD.
Frederick the Great
Nov 17, 2012, 12:17:46 AM11/17/12
to
In article <da9d82c7-e1ca-497a...@googlegroups.com>,
data...@yahoo.com wrote:
Incoherent, unformatted dribble.
--
Old Fritz
data...@yahoo.com wrote:
Incoherent, unformatted dribble.
--
Old Fritz
thirty-six
Nov 18, 2012, 8:18:53 PM11/18/12
to
On 17 Nov, 05:17, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <da9d82c7-e1ca-497a...@googlegroups.com>,
Here's a few other random words.
Pat Mc is corrupt. The Franco-Swiss tax agency for professional
cycling is corrupt.
misinformed, disinformed and underinformed. 36 ;-)
> In article <da9d82c7-e1ca-497a...@googlegroups.com>,
Here's a few other random words.
Pat Mc is corrupt. The Franco-Swiss tax agency for professional
cycling is corrupt.
misinformed, disinformed and underinformed. 36 ;-)
Davey Crockett
Nov 21, 2012, 7:19:50 AM11/21/12
to
"atriage" a �crit profondement:
| Free Willy<free...@invalid.invalid
| > A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance passed
| > all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT
| > doping because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
>
| Listen up fuckwit, what defines doping is whether or not someone WAS
| doping, Lance was, only a credulous fool suffering a nasty dose of
| cognitive dissonance would think otherwise.
Looks like you got about the last word in.
Now can we all say Kadish for SuperWanker?
--
Davey Crockett
| Free Willy<free...@invalid.invalid
| > A real man and a real organization would simply say, "Lance passed
| > all the controls so it follows that, by defintion, Lance was NOT
| > doping because what DEFINES doping is passing the doping controls.
>
| Listen up fuckwit, what defines doping is whether or not someone WAS
| doping, Lance was, only a credulous fool suffering a nasty dose of
| cognitive dissonance would think otherwise.
Now can we all say Kadish for SuperWanker?
--
Davey Crockett
Phil H
Nov 25, 2012, 9:33:03 PM11/25/12
to
Yours faithfully, Pat McQuaid President, UCI
IOW, the testing doesn't work so now we have this new "hotline" aka the common or garden grapevine, which will ensure a process for you to rat on your doping team mate. After all, this is far more effective than testing as it brought down the most successful cyclist of the last decade of doping.
Way to go Pat!
Phil H
yirgster
Nov 26, 2012, 2:50:13 AM11/26/12
to
Given the track record of the UCI why would any rider trust doing so? Riders who previously brought up the use of drugs were at best ignored but sometimes outright attacked by the UCI.
This view was expressed by Michael Ashenden:
“A hotline is a sensible strategy, when it is managed by a credible organisation,” he told VeloNation.
“For the UCI to urge riders to come forward with information now is like a fox with feathers in its mouth urging the next chicken to come down off its roost.”
Frankie Andreu had a similar reaction although he addressed the UCI hot line more, uh, pungently, as a "shit idea".
"The main problem that I have with it is that when he says people brought information forward to the UCI that they followed up on it. Are they contacting those in the USADA investigations or are they sitting back and just letting the report sit and be what it is?"
Ashenden reference: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13286/Ashenden-says-UCI-run-anti-doping-hotline-would-lack-credibility.aspx
Andreu reference: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andreu-skeptical-about-uci-doping-hotline
This view was expressed by Michael Ashenden:
“A hotline is a sensible strategy, when it is managed by a credible organisation,” he told VeloNation.
“For the UCI to urge riders to come forward with information now is like a fox with feathers in its mouth urging the next chicken to come down off its roost.”
Frankie Andreu had a similar reaction although he addressed the UCI hot line more, uh, pungently, as a "shit idea".
"The main problem that I have with it is that when he says people brought information forward to the UCI that they followed up on it. Are they contacting those in the USADA investigations or are they sitting back and just letting the report sit and be what it is?"
Ashenden reference: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13286/Ashenden-says-UCI-run-anti-doping-hotline-would-lack-credibility.aspx
Andreu reference: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andreu-skeptical-about-uci-doping-hotline
atriage
Nov 26, 2012, 5:03:46 AM11/26/12
to
yirgster<yirg....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the track record of the UCI why would any rider trust doing so? Riders who previously brought up the use of drugs were at best ignored but sometimes outright attacked by the UCI.
> This view was expressed by Michael Ashenden:
> “A hotline is a sensible strategy, when it is managed by a credible organisation,” he told VeloNation.
> “For the UCI to urge riders to come forward with information now is like a fox with feathers in its mouth urging the next chicken to come down off its roost.”
data...@yahoo.com
Nov 28, 2012, 7:37:08 AM11/28/12
to
you're saying McQuaid's playing good guy against the bad guys for a hot line ?
McQuaid's telling us his group conspired with ASO/Industry/USPosrtal ?
knowing his 'letter' could read anyway but not be functional true.
McQuaid's telling us his group conspired with ASO/Industry/USPosrtal ?
knowing his 'letter' could read anyway but not be functional true.
data...@yahoo.com
Jan 17, 2013, 3:46:06 PM1/17/13
to
a second look
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html?mod=us_most_pop_newsreel
0 new messages